Violence

Okay, so today in our Socratic Seminar class, we talked about violence and I was deeply annoyed by most of the comments that were made about it. I don't if I see violence different than others so...help me figure this out.

Okay, so our teacher asked, "Is violence okay?" I immediately thought 'yes,' but my classmates were like, "No! It's wrong! It should never be used! It's never okay!" And I just sat there and thought, 'OK, I don't really agree with that.' I didn't say that in class because in the area that I live, I would've gotten a ton of people chewing me out for my thoughts. Anyways, I believe violence is justified when someone is aggressively attacking you, and in war. If you fight someone back for attacking you, would you get in trouble? No! Because if you just stand there and do nothing, you're going to get hurt worse than trying to fight back. In war it's okay because some things have to be settled that way. Even in religious doctrine they accept it for certain purposes (I think the majority of the people reading this would be familiar with the Jews in the Bible fighting their way into their promised land-Israel).

Also, I stand by the quote, "All is fair in Love and War." That's when violence is good. But Violence is bad when it's the slaughtering of the innocent. Now you may question how violence is okay with love. Well, say someone starts harassing your (in a Male's case) wife, and won't listen to your pleads for the assaulter to stop. So, you punch him to get away from your wife. I also stand by violence and love for other reasons that most people wouldn't understand until I published my book.

Anyways, I think some people get a little to carried away with the whole 'peace' thing, and don't understand that sometimes violence can help bring peace, cause really, could anyone have stopped Hitler by trying to talk to him?

Price, Quantity, and Quality.

In the world of business (especially businesses that you hire for services) they say that there is two of three things you get from different companies. Price. Quantity. Quality. Every company will only offer you two, you can't get all three. The question is, what will you choose?

If you pick price and quantity, you'll get a lot of something, for a low price. However, it's quality will be pretty low.

If you pick price and quality, you get something very nice, for a low price. Therefore, you won't be able to get much of it.

Finally, if you pick quantity and quality (my favorite combo) you get a lot of something that is very nice. You'll have to dish out a lot of money for it, but that's just how things are.

Now if I were looking for something, I'd never pick price, especially if I was hiring an artist, architect, or photographer. Why? Because what they do is a skill which deserves proper pay for the amazing work they do. Anyone who doesn't charge a lot will have very low quality work. You pay for what you get. This seems to be a problem in the state I live in, cause no one wants to pay people for what they're worth. And not just that. There's tons of amateurs (mainly photographers) in the area that think they can make a quick buck by snapping a few photos. It's not like that. It takes skill and passion do perform a work of art, not just a desire of money. And because of all the amateurs, they steal customers from the real artists making life hard for them.

So, next time you're shopping for something, keep this post in mind, and pay those who actually deserve your pay.

What will the Future be?

What will the future be? How do you imagine it? Do imagine the mainstream version, or an alternative version?


Personally, I see the future like this. Cities will be filled with gleaming skyscrapers which will stretch like fingers towards the heavens. Streets will be filled with people doing this and that while electric cars pass by soundlessly. At night, the city becomes an array of colors. Neon lights everywhere advertising, lighting streets, drawing attention to different locations. The streets seem to glow with light being reflected off their glassy surfaces. Music fills the streets at night while acrobatics are performed during the day. Acrobats jumping between buildings and doing tricks with the unique architecture of the various things that covers the streets. Water is the common art; it pours off the sides of buildings into a spiral funnel that shoots it out in a stream across the street into the arch which drips the water down it's middle to form a wishing well. Stress is a rare thing since a large dome building provides relief for it. Within the dome are many platforms which hover in the middle of the air with people sitting, laying down, or standing upon them. It's surprisingly peaceful to be far off the ground in a quiet, humongous white dome.

Teens gather at music halls where they can rent their own room or group rooms and play any music they want. The light and colors follow the music and the way they dance. They're even able to walk on the walls and ceiling. Movie theaters use not only 3-D, but use feeling and scent too in their movies, almost putting the watcher into the movie itself. Outdoor malls have dominated indoor malls allowing stores to be put into odd places such as underneath a bridge, or balanced on top of supports which raise it off the ground.



I'm not sure if this is what the future's really going to be like, but, this is the way I'd want it. What about you?

The Past vs. the Future.

Last week, my family and I took a trip up to Park City to explore the streets there a bit. For some reason, I always was annoyed when I visited Park City, or any other city/town that hasn't done much to keep up with the times.


As I walked up and down the streets observing each building I passed, I noticed they all were old, and not up to date with technology. I asked myself 'Why hold onto your past? Sooner or later people are going to lose interest.'

Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate history and everything that we can learn from it, but trying to hold onto it won't do any good. I'm all about advancing towards the future. If you dawdle around putting your history on a pedestal without paying attention to the future, the future will either force you to avert your attention, or will conquer you. What I mean by that is, if you own a farm, and harvest your crops with a scythe, you'll be a lot slower then a combine, and eventually you'll go out of business or have to update your methods.

Or, if you're country ignores technology and does everything the old fashioned way, a more advanced country is going to come in a dominate you. Whoever has the latest toys, whoever has the better evolved methods, whoever has the faster production rates will be dominate in any time.

What do You Look for?

What do you look for in a book? Comedy? Action? Romance? Fantasy? Suspence? Mystery? Something else? What kind interests you? What kind's your favorite? What kind of things should the book have? What shouldn't it have? Does it matter if the endings happy or sad?

Personally, I love a book that has a mix of comedy, romance, action, and suspence.

I'd REALLY like to see what anyone's idea's are cause I'm writing a book and want to see what people like in a book.

Thanks!

Grendel

Ok, so we read a couple of chapters from Grendel's point of view and I really liked it! I think I like Grendel better than Beowulf now. I mean, sure he's a monster, but I think he thinks we're monsters, so he hunts us like we hunt him. And for those of you who've ready Twilight (especially Breaking Dawn) I think he's a bit like Jacob.

Who Would Win?

The other day when I was reading Beowulf, I wondered how a fight between History's greatest hereos would turn out. Like, Beowulf, Achilles, Ajax, Odysseus, Hector, Paris, and Alexander the Great. It'd be interesting. I think it'd come down to Achilles vs. Beowulf because Achillies is practically invicible, and Beowulf is so macho and has uber amounts of strength. I don't know how that one would turn out.
What do you guys think? Who would win between Beowulf and Achilles, or if the last two would be one of the others I mentioned?

PLEASE READ!

I saw this video on YouTube and was shocked at what I saw! Obama isn't who he says he is! He can talk about change, he can rationalize about his decisions, but what he has done in the past is too horrific to save him now. Please watch this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo

Pyramid of Abstraction

Ok, I don't know about anyone else, but this pyramid of abstraction that we're learning in Socratic is bugging the heck out of me. I kinda feel like it's limiting my writing.

Over the summer, I read half a dozen books on how to improve your writing (because I'm writing a novel). None of them mentioned the pyramid of abstraction, and these are best selling authors. Something that most of them said was that good authors usually break the rules of writing and find their own style.

I get what the pyramid's trying to do though. It's trying to get the writer to descibe what they're writing about. Yeah, I get that, but not all things are to be described, or should be described later when the description can be shown. I personally hate descriptions. There's books that'll pick up and the first chapter or two is just descriptions. That's bores me to death. Or, if at one paticular part in the book the author decideds to start rambling out the descriptions. Usually, from what I've read, it's best to descrid things by showing them with actions, and at diferent times.

For example, instead of, 'Ally had black hair, blue eyes, pale skin, and scars all over her body,' One could say, 'Ally neverously ran her fingers through her black hair, a habit she picked up from when she was around her abusive brother. She looked in the mirror, her crystal eyes staring back at her. As she gazed in the mirror she marveled because all of her life she never thought the scars covering her body would go away.'

Again, I don't know if it's just me as far as this pyramid thing goes, it's just something that bugs me. If anyone disagrees with my opinion or feels the need to chew me out for what I've siad, be my guest. Also, if you agree with me, it'd be nice if you said something too.

Thanks!

Beowulf

I've enjoyed Beowulf so far. It's been really interesting. I found line 418 funny when he's talking about his awesome strength. Kinda sounded like something Arnold Swartzenager would say in a movie. (Did I spell that right?)



The fight with Grendel was interesting how Grendel hadn't been so frightened before. It kinda showed how important Beowulf was.



For some reason I have never liked Minstrels or Bards in Literature. They just bug me. Always talking about some king who conquered some nation and they ramble on about it for hours.